AdilThe only secret that Pakistan kept about Raad or Babur like everything else in Pakistan was from its people. Irrespective of what Indian Naval chief said, he and others were well aware of these two missile.Hell they can tell you the source for each major component in these missiles. Others may be but an Indian Military Attache in one of the East European country was not sleeping on his job.
If that was the case, why did the indians not include cruise missiles in the agreement signed between the 2 countires for advance notification of missile tests? The Pakistanis wanted to include cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles in this agreement, however, the indians kept on stating that Pakistan never had this technology nor was likely to get it any time soon…
AdilPAF chief told the government after the Mumbai crisis that it will lose Air Superiority in a week or so in case of war.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1216056
Not Delusional, Tell me how many PAF fighters have BVR capability ? The MIG 29s and SU 30s are enough.
You are joking right?
“In a secret report, the air force has told president Asif Ali Zardari, who is also commander-in-chief of the armed forces, …”
which happens to have been discovered by an indian journalist? Like I said, delusional…
The PAF have always been rather ambiguous when it comes to their BVR capability, and on purpose. The ROSE upgraded Mirages are known to be BVR capable, although no details have ever emerged on what possible missiles they could use. If Pakistan could keep the Raad and Babur CM a secret, I’m sure there are other surprises for iaf Mig-29s and SU-30s…if you believe thats enough.
AdilActually incase of a war PAF will not have superiority in its own airspace for long.
Wishful thinking and delusional…
AdilWell locating a TEL and destroying was as simple as that , then USAF with complete superiority and all the intelligence asset and AWACS did not find success destroying a single TEL in Gulf War 1.
Pakistan needs to have reasonable air superiority over the region to make good use of its assets to effectively detect , track and provide real time intelligence to asset like a fighter in air or some supersonic missile to hit the TEL before it launches its missile.
As i said its not PAF cup of tea , most likely they would be hard pressed defending their own skies and assets and trying to control it rather then maintaining any superiority on Indian skies.
Again, quite simplistic thinking. I don’t think the scenario of the USAF during GFI is comparable with the Indo/Pak scenario. First of all, the USAF was hunting down scuds in an entire country. The same does not apply to the Pak/Inia scenario. As you mentioned above, even if the prithvi was within 100km of the indo-pak border, most valuable targets would be in its range. That already defines an area where most prithvi launches are likely to take place, providing an area for the PAF to concentrate on. Given the number of UAVs, AWACS and other intelligence sources, in combination with long range standoff weapons, the PAF doesnt need to gain air superiority in indian airspace. It could operate within its own borders and still target potential prithvi launch sites.
AdilWell Prithvi max range is 350 Km even at 100 km inside India , the 250 Km range brings most of Pakistan Important cities , defence and military installation , airbase under its range.
More ever its beyond the cup of Pakistan military and PAF to get hard real time intelligence on a mobile systems on the move and get the aircraft or missile to get there at the right time to hit.
Not to mention they will need complete air superiority to accomplish these besides multiple assets to track a mobile system.
Liquid fuel though cumbersome to fill , but once filled can remain mobile and autonomous for a long time
Thats a very simplistic picture and not really taking everything into account. For example, PAF AWACS, UAVs and other intelligence sources locating launch sites. In addition, the emphasis of the PAF on long range standoff weapons, such as H2/H4 and Raad, which already has a 350km range and expected to be extended in the future, means that the PAF could operate within its own airspace and still be able to target launch sites.
AdilNo solid fuel Prithvi exist , the test of solid fuel Prithvi was used as a cover to test the solid fuel Shourya or the K-15 SLBM.
Brahmos is good to hit time sensitive high value targets with Pin Point accuracy specially the Brahmos block 2 , Prithvi has a reason and purpose to exist in Indian inventory as explained in reply above.
For the prithvi to target most of Pakistan, it would have to come close to the Indo/Pak broder, making it vulnerable to the long range stand off weapons now being deployed by the PAF, which are likely to further increase in range. As prithvi is more cumersome and requires greater support, it becomes an easier target. The brahmos offers more mobility and ease of use.
AdilI doubt whether the pritvi can use solid fuel, all the test footage I’ve seen so far suggests the use of liquid fuel, even in the pad test. The missile has quite limited range too, being approximately similar to the range of the brahmos, which does beg the question, why even bother with the prithvi at all? the brahmos provides better operations with similar range?
AdilAdil, if i remeber correctly ROSE III was an extension of ROSE II adding FLIR to Sagem MAESTRO Nav/Attack system and I dont think it involves a radar upgared. After ROSE III came ROSE IV, and though im not aware of it current status I think it should have finsihed by now or quite close to it. I might be wrong but addition of IFR probe might be part of ROSE V.
Yes, I think you are right, perhaps I didn’t make it clear, I was referring to the complete upgrade from Rose I, which included the Grifo M radar, if I remember correctly
AdilThats a lovely pic and makes for an excellent precision strike platform!!
Do you have any details on what the ROSE-III upgrade consists of? I had heard a rumour that it included the ability to fire MICA. Is that true?
I don’t know the exact details, but it does involve a FIAR Grifo bvr radar, multifunction displays, mission computers, FLIR in the nose section, Atlis II targetting pod and other enhancements, as I say, I dont know the exact details, so not sure if they can use the MICA.
AdilThere is an Israeli drop tank that features a probe enabling F-16s to use the hose-and-drogue refueling method. Maybe that’s an option, and then you can rely solely on the MIDAS tankers. KC-10s? Not a chance, they’re overused in the USAF as it is. KC-135s? Equally unlikely if you ask me. You don’t want an E model that’ll last for about five minutes, and the R models are being used and abused! Plus, with the state of the tanker program for the USAF, they may not want to be parting with any air refueling assets anytime soon anyway :rolleyes:
Perhaps the best choice would’ve been an Airbus or Boeing tanker design, complete with both boom and wingtip drogue pods? More expensive, not available quite as quickly, but it’d have worked, in theory, with the whole fleet. The only question is whether Pakistan needs two different tankers due to potentially different probes and drogue interfaces on the Western and Eastern fighters and A/R aircraft.
I think the Islraeli’s don’t use the probe equipped tanks that often, I’m geussing it probably has quite an impact in terms of weight and aerodynamics on the aircraft.
The PAF will definately need 2 different tankers, particularly if they want to refuel the F16s, the rest of the fleet will have probe refuelling. While at Farborough this year I had a chat with a sales rep from EADS at their stand, they were showing their latest A330 based tanker. While chatting with him about the US tanker competition debacle, I asked him about the PAF. Apparantley the PAF are in talks with EADS over converting some ex-PIA A310s into dual boom/probe tankers, although when or if this ever comes to light is anyones guess.
AdilThe venerable Mirage III still seems to be going strong with the PAF. These recent pictures and viedo suggest an in flight refuelling probe has been added along with a modern cockpit layout, possibly as part of the ROSE III retro-fit.
The video shows the new defence minister visiting a PAF facility and includes some cockpit layout shots of the mirage and exterior shots of the JF-17.
The PAF has selected 3-4 Il-78 Midas tankers for refuelling duties, the first of which should be with the PAF in a couple of months time. However, this still leaves a secondary requirment for refuelling the F-16, which I’m guessing will be privided by surplus ex-USAF KC-135 tankers? The KC-10 would have been a more suitable choice with extra pods on the wngs, as that would have allowed refuelling of mixed JF-17 and F16 formations from a single platform
More news of future acquisitions of the PAF were elluded to by the recent interview of the ACM by AFM last month. These include the Erieye, KJ-200 and FC20 (J10 in PAF service). It sure will be really interesting to see how the Chinese systems intergrate with the western origin platforms such as the Erieyes, and vice versa with the F16s and the KJ-200. It will also be interesting to see how the FC20 differs from its Chinese J10 counterpart. The PAF have been quite experienced, with some success, in intergrating western technology in Chinese origing aircraft in the past, so shoud be quite interesting.
Pictures and video courtesy of PakDef.info
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312815326750918156&hl=en
AdilAdil,
You are confusing the ‘naval’ Su-27KUB with the ‘bomber’ Su-34.
Both have similar side-by-side cockpits – but it is the Su-27KUB that has bigger wings and tailplanes (and bigger canards)
The respective dimensions are :-
Su-34 Wingspan 14.7m, Area 62.04m2
Su-27KUB Wingspan 16m, Area71.38m2Ken
Thanks for the info. However, are there any real benefits from the side-by-side cockpit layout? Seems like wasted efforts if there is no real improvement in aircraft performance, particularly if the paylod stays the same. Range may improve marginally with greater fuel, but will likely be offset by the higher weight? The greater front cross sectional area will also increase head on RCS signature. The most logical option to develop an extended range and improved bomber varient would have been a tandem seat configured SU-30 with lager proportions?
AdilI’ve been wondering that myself. From my limited knowledge about it, I think I read somewhere that the Su-34 has increased armor protection for it’s cockpit, as well as avionics more in line with a true bomber than a strike fighter like the Su-30 from what I’m seeing from the wikipedia article. Also, I think it’s shaped nose lowers it’s RCS a bit, and the Su-34 holds more fuel from what I’ve read.
That’s my two cents, but I’m not sure though; there’s bound to be someone with a bit more knowledge. I’m more interested in the avionics and systems side of it.
I think it has slightly larger wings and tailplane than the SU-30, and offcourse the re-designed front section of the fuselage. However, I don’t understand how it can have a lower RCS if it has a larger front cross section and overall larger dimensions?
I’m sure a slightly larger proportioned SU-30 could have been built, without having to redesign the front section, in order to increase space for more avionics and fuel. Even then, I don’t think it has any significant increase in payload capacity relative to the SU-30. Again, only AFAIK.
AdilThe Su-34 story, Russian only, but excellent & unseen footage (4 parts):
In the 3rd part of that series, it shows some possible ASW capabilites of the SU-34 at 7:21, and at 7:41 it shows what looks like a MAD capability in the tail boom. I never thought it was capable of this, but I guess if it will also be navalised, it is an obvious capability to have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htZNLezBG60&feature=related
However, I always question if there was ever a need to develop the side-by-side version SU-34/32. Please correct me if I am wrong, but ASFAIK, I don’t think its payload is that much different to other twin seat tandem versions of the Sukhoi such as the SU-30 MKI/MKK?
AdilHiya again. The Hall sensor upgrade, as well as numerous DIY and other projects for the Thrustmaster Cougar can be found at the following community site: http://cougar.frugalsworld.com/
Look for the “Hardware Mods” link.
I have to say the combined head tracker and HMD while expensive is attractive but as you say expensive. Bit hard to invest all that and find you get motion sickness. 800×600 doesn’t seem that great for reading HUDs and the only HMD I’ve used was a headache inducing 640×400. Try before you buy would be my advice. I wouldn’t mind giving that Z800 3DVisor a go myself.
Don’t expect add-on packs for the “open falcons” to work with Allied Force, but this is perhaps not the right place to ask, try the Open Falcon forums.
Good luck pilot
Hi Flexman,
Again, thanks so much for the helpful guidance. I never realised ther would be such a huge fan following over a joystick and flight controls 😮
But having read up over the Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS, I can see why. It’s clearly one of the best ones to get, if not THE best flight controls.
The Hall sensor upgrade does look quite awsome, but not sure it justifies the price tag and if it really does add any further value.
I think the I would have to give up on the idea of a combined HMD/Headtracking unit, the unit costs really are abit on the high side, well for me at least anyway. Maybe if they become more popular.
Thanks for the guidance
Sign In
